Lester Caine wrote:
And more critically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
PREVENTS using it as a repository of terms :(
As the link you just provided indicates, Wiktionary is the Wikipedia
equivalent for a dictionary. I admit I haven't read this whole thread,
but it would make sense to me to use Wiktionary as a repository of
geo-definitions. As an occasional user of Wiktionary myself and not an
expert, I feel it has a good structure for the management of multiple
languages. And Wiktionary and Wikipedia have strong ties together (e.g.
the ability to link directly to the other website) and Wikipedia's
popularity (even with the numerous imperfections it has) can attract
much more users to Wiktionary.
This is one of the graphs that made me enthusiastic (maybe wrongly?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktionary_growth.png
Have a great holiday time,
Alex
http://slashgeo.org
--
Alexandre Leroux, M.Sc., Ing.
Environnement Canada / Environment Canada
Centre météorologique canadien / Canadian Meteorological Centre
Division de la réponse aux urgences environnementales /
Environmental Emergency Response Division
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
